[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region

[Aragon Gouveia]

| By Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
|                                          [ 2003-09-23 17:20 +0200 ]
> - The playing field is level.
> 
>   Today the same policies apply to anyone asking for IP space.  It
>   doesn't matter if your from Africa or Podunk Iowa, the process
>   is applied equally and fairly.  This proposal will actually create
>   an unlevel playing field that favors African ISP's.  For instance,
>   would it be possible under this proposal for a US company to set
>   up an African shell company, get IP space, and then use it in the
>   US?  Making things like that possible would be very bad.

I think the point Darren was trying to make in the case of South Africa was
that because of our vastly different and smaller economy and demographics,
only about 10% of the ISPs in this country have a large enough subscriber
base to qualify for their own address allocation under the current
procedures.  In turn this means only about 10% of the ISPs are capable of
providing the higher service levels that portable address space makes
possible.

There is most certainly a need for higher service levels of internet
connectivity in South Africa to increase internet adoption and, in turn,
grow the local internet here.

Although it may be technically possible for a US company to setup an African
shell company to be used in the US just so they can gain access to their own
/22, this would be practically senseless given the much higher relative costs
of running an ISP type business here and, more importantly, the much lower
levels of service with international connectivity from here.  I think they'd
be more likely to seek another line of business than even considering this
route.


> - African ISP's have taken steps to preserve space, which is part of
>   the problem.
> 
>   I think it's great that African ISP's have figured out how to use
>   NAT and other technologies to save space.  While I don't want to
>   advocate "wasting" space my first question would be if you're
>   going to renumber into your own portable block anyway why not get
>   rid of the NAT, which will also improve your customers connectivity?
>   There are, after all, applications that do not work through NAT.
>   Would counting all those customers in a request justify enough
>   IP's to qualify under the current procedures?

For some ISPs it may bring them closer to qualifying under the current
procedures, but I don't think it'd be the ice breaker for the majority.  By
providing smaller allocations it allows one to preserve IP address
efficiency (without having to get rid of NAT for the sole purpose of
obtaining portable address space) and offer better service levels.

But from my own experiences, those that utilise NAT are doing so for reasons
other than address shortage.  I actually don't think this is really an
issue.


Regards,
Aragon